The option concerning how to respond to blackmail victims, especially those who have been exposed to sexually explicit material (a practise known as “sextortion”), is generally a difficult one. As we previously discussed on our blog, notifying the police about the situation may result in additional legal action being taken against the blackmailer. In case of any الابتزاز الإلكتروني, please visit our website.
What are your most pressing concerns?
For obvious reasons, someone who has been subjected to blackmail may be anxious about the risk that their identity would be disclosed if their case goes to court. It is significantly more likely for blackmail to be successful when the victim is frightened of having their embarrassing personal details disclosed. It is possible for a blackmailer’s threat to become a reality if the victim’s identity is not protected throughout the criminal justice process. You can visit our website in case of ابتزاز.
Can one expect to remain anonymous when confronted with certain circumstances?
Those who have been subjected to blackmail should be aware that they cannot anticipate anonymity or other forms of identity protection by default. It is required to file petitions in court, and the judge has the last word on whether or not the applications should be granted permission to proceed. It is possible that the defendant’s legal counsel will strongly oppose such petitions.
What steps can you take to ensure the security of your personal information?
As stated in Section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the prosecution may request that reporting restrictions be imposed. Any information about the victim that may lead the general public to assume that person was a witness in the case would be forbidden from appearing in any publication while the victim is still alive if these restrictions are implemented. This prevents the blackmail victim from being identified in the press, but it is not the same as anonymity. The reporting restrictions imposed by Section 46 do not preclude a member of the public from attending court and hearing the victim’s name and the circumstances of the case being discussed. Over the course of the proceedings In order to remedy this issue, the prosecution may choose to seek the trial judge for permission to allow the victim to give evidence in open court without having to reveal their identify. If necessary, judges have the common law authority to alter the regular course of a trial under appropriate circumstances. According to CPS guidelines, this is now routine practise in cases involving blackmail or threats of blackmail. All parties and witnesses should abide by the judge’s ruling so that they are not allowed to refer to the victim by name throughout the course of the trial. This is a reasonable approach.
Even if only the bare minimum of orders are obtained, a blackmail victim’s identity will be adequately protected, especially when combined with other special measures that a judge may approve, such as giving evidence behind a screen or via video link from a different room in the courthouse (i.e. out of the defendant’s view).
What is the CPS’s real method to dealing with this issue?
The result has been that, while CPS laws specify that the organisation is dedicated to supporting victims and witnesses, we have seen in extortion cases that this is frequently not the case in practise. Upon further investigation, victims may learn that their concerns about identity protection were not taken into consideration and that the necessary directives were not put in place. When this occurs, having an attorney by your side who can communicate with the Child Protective Services on your behalf, make comments regarding the appropriate orders to seek, and guide you through the process may be quite valuable to you.